A manutenção da convivência dos filhos com ambos os pais após a ruptura conjugal é uma temática discutida em vários textos, documentos e leis nacionais e internacionais. Todavia, a preservação destas relações se mostra uma tarefa complexa, quando nos referimos às Varas de Família e às separações e divórcios litigiosos que a elas se apresentam. Além dos conflitos parentais, diferentes razões podem causar o distanciamento entre os filhos e o genitor com quem não residem, como alegações de violência sobretudo sexual contra a criança, recusa desta em ver o genitor descontínuo e dificuldades impostas pelo genitor contínuo com relação à convivência. Nos casos mais graves, o convívio pode ser regulamentado judicialmente sob a modalidade de visitas monitoradas, isto é, na presença de um terceiro, visando preservar o vínculo entre pais ou outros familiares e crianças e/ou adolescentes e, ao mesmo tempo, garantir a proteção destes. Em nosso contexto de pesquisa, os encontros acontecem dentro dos fóruns e são monitorados por psicólogos judiciários. Estes, porém, atuam sem embasamento técnico ou teórico, dada a escassez de cursos de Psicologia que oferecem a disciplina de Psicologia Jurídica no Brasil, a carência de literatura nacional específica sobre as visitas monitoradas e a falta de uma estrutura adequada, incluindo supervisão e discussão de casos, que permita aos profissionais uma sistematização da prática. O presente trabalho teve por objetivo compreender o significado e a função das visitas monitoradas determinadas judicialmente em Varas de Família para operadores do Direito (juízes, promotoras e advogados), psicólogas judiciárias e familiares. Realizamos a coleta de dados a partir de entrevistas psicológicas semi-estruturadas, por meio do método hermenêutico (Mandelbaum, 2012), com 18 participantes, sendo quatro magistrados, duas promotoras, um advogado, oito psicólogas judiciárias, dois pais e uma mãe. As entrevistas foram transcritas e, no decorrer das transcrições, identificamos temáticas comuns nos discursos dos entrevistados, o que levou à criação de 18 categorias de análise. A partir destas, realizamos uma extensa pesquisa bibliográfica internacional, a fim de conhecermos a prática de visitas monitoradas pelo mundo. Deparamo-nos com ampla quantidade de materiais publicados na Europa, Oceania, América do Norte e Israel, cujas experiências apresentam algumas diferenças daquelas realizadas no Brasil, entretanto, muitas semelhanças, tais como: a variedade de terminologias utilizadas para designar a visitação monitorada; uma diversidade de práticas e formatos de trabalho; problemas de comunicação entre os tribunais e aqueles que monitoram os encontros e dificuldade quanto a uma definição clara da técnica e do lugar do profissional nas visitas monitoradas. A análise das entrevistas foi condizente com os temas encontrados no exterior, o que permitiu uma articulação teórico-prática e a percepção da limitação do procedimento de visitas monitoradas para atender às demandas dos complexos conflitos familiares que rotineiramente chegam às Varas de Família. Concluímos pela importância da viabilização de uma integralização de serviços, que ofereça uma rede de cuidado e suporte às famílias em litígio, cujas necessidades extrapolam a capacidade e mesmo o objetivo das visitas monitoradas / The maintenance of the children\'s contact with both parents after the marital breakup is a theme discussed in many texts, documents, and national and international laws. However, the preservation of these relationships is a complex task, when we refer to the Family Courts and the litigious separations and divorces that present themselves to them. In addition to parental conflicts, different reasons may cause the distance between the offspring and the parent with whom they do not reside, such as allegations of violence - especially sexual - against the child, refusal to see the noncustodial parent and difficulties imposed by the custodial parent related to access. In more severe cases, contact can be legally regulated in the form of supervised visitation, i.e., in the presence of a third party, to preserve the bond between parents or other family members and children and/or adolescents and, at the same time, ensuring protection to this children and adolescents. In our research context, the meetings take place within the forums and are supervised by judicial psychologists. These professionals, however, act without technical or theoretical basis, given the shortage of Psychology courses that offer the discipline of Legal Psychology in Brazil, the deficiency of specific national literature about the supervised visitation and the lack of adequate infrastructure, including supervision and case discussion, to allow these professionals a systematization of the practice. The aim of the present study was to comprehend the meaning and function of supervised visitation judicially ordered in the Family Courts for legal operators, (judges, prosecutors and lawyers), judiciary psychologists and family members. We performed the data collection by semi-structured psychological interviews, through the hermeneutic method (Mandelbaum, 2012), with 18 participants, being four magistrates, two prosecutors, one lawyer, eight judicial psychologists, two fathers and one mother. The interviews were transcribed and, during the transcripts, we identified common themes in the respondents speeches, which led to the creation of 18 categories of analysis. From these, we carried out an extensive international bibliographical research, in order to get to know the practice of supervised visitation around the world. We encountered a broad amount of materials published in Europe, Oceania, North America and Israel, whose experiences show some differences from those performed in Brazil, however, many similarities, such as: the variety of terminology used to designate supervised visitation; a diversity of practices and formats of work; problems of communication between the courts and those who supervise the meetings, and difficulty related to a clear definition of the technique and the role of the professional in the supervised visits. The analysis of the interviews was consistent with the themes found abroad, allowing a theoretical and practical articulation and also the perception of the limits of the supervised visitation procedure to assist the demands of the complex family conflicts that routinely reach the Family Courts. We conclude by the importance of the feasibility of integrated services that could offer a network of care and support to the families in litigation, whose needs exceed the capacity and even the objective of the supervised visitation

Our jury system is predicated upon the expectation that jurors engage in systematic processing when considering evidence and making decisions. They are instructed to interpret facts and apply the appropriate law in a fair, dispassionate manner, free of all bias, including that of emotion. However, emotions containing an element of certainty (e.g., anger and happiness, which require little cognitive effort in determining their source) can often lead people to engage in superficial, heuristic-based processing. Compare this to uncertain emotions (e.g., hope and fear, which require people to seek out explanations for their emotional arousal), which instead has the potential to lead them to engage in deeper, more systematic processing. The purpose of the current research is in part to confirm past research (Tiedens & Linton, 2001; Semmler & Brewer, 2002) that uncertain emotions (like fear) can influence decision-making towards a more systematic style of processing, whereas more certain emotional states (like anger) will lead to a more heuristic style of processing. Studies One, Two, and Three build upon this prior research with the goal of improving methodological rigor through the use of film clips to reliably induce emotions, with awareness of testimonial details serving as measures of processing style. The ultimate objective of the current research was to explore this effect in Study Four by inducing either fear, anger, or neutral emotion in mock jurors, half of whom then followed along with a trial transcript featuring eight testimonial inconsistencies, while the other participants followed along with an error-free version of the same transcript. Overall rates of detection for these inconsistencies was expected to be higher for the uncertain/fearful participants due to their more effortful processing compared to certain/angry participants. These expectations were not fulfilled, with significant main effects only for the transcript version (with or without inconsistencies) on overall inconsistency detection rates. There are a number of plausible explanations for these results, so further investigation is needed.

No description available.

A Psicologia Jurídica é concebida como contendo a Psicologia Forense, que contém a Psicologia Judiciária. Estas relações de inclusão, com as respectivas delimitações, são aqui estabelecidas com fundamento nos papéis de perito e assistente técnico, tais como previstos na legislação vigente, da qual se abstraiu o critério de ausência ou presença da imposição de imparcialidade e pela qual se reconheceram diferenças quanto aos objetivos da atuação. Nosso método consistiu em proceder à ampla pesquisa da legislação pertinente, assim como de resoluções, diretrizes e bibliografia avalizada pelo Sistema Conselhos de Psicologia, além da bibliografia do último concurso do Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo e de outras publicações a que tivemos acesso. Conduzimo-nos com o intuito de apontar imprecisões decorrentes da porosidade entre essas três áreas das interfaces da Psicologia com o Direito, cujas delimitações não nos pareceram ainda devidamente acentuadas. Pautamo-nos pela prescrição de obrigatoriedade da perícia psicológica na legislação e na regulamentação da profissão, enfatizando os contornos entre perícia psicológica e diagnóstico psicológico, discernindo o trabalho do psicólogo judiciário do cabível ao psicólogo assistente técnico forense. Empenhamo-nos em caracterizar a assistência técnica psicológica como todo o trabalho realizado sob a égide da ética da relação entre profissional e cliente/usuário de serviço público, em contraposição à ética da realização de perícias. Como resultado, definimos o campo da Psicologia Jurídica como o conjunto universo de todas essas práticas, nela se inserindo aquelas realizadas nos órgãos cujo fundamento é evitar a jurisdicionalização dos conflitos (Defensoria Pública e Conselho Tutelar), bem como naqueles voltados a atender pessoas em situação de vulnerabilidade social (CRAS) ou sob risco de rompimento de vínculos familiares (CREAS), quando o psicólogo insiste em uma prática genuinamente psicológica, ou seja, que não se volte a atender objetivos forenses (adequação do convívio familiar, mediação/conciliação de conflitos, promoção do entendimento, formalização do acordo, tomada de decisão). Classificamos como Psicologia Forense o trabalho do psicólogo na execução penal objetivando a reintegração social do preso e o realizado nas Centrais de Penas e Medidas Alternativas, assim como a assistência técnica psicológica realizada no Ministério Público e nos serviços criados pela Lei Maria da Penha e nos CREAS. Já a Psicologia Judiciária, classificamos como as práticas realizadas pelo psicólogo funcionário dos Tribunais de Justiça e as de todos que a eles se equiparam ao proceder a estudo psicológico sob determinação judicial de envolvidos em processos judiciais com quem nunca mantiveram contato prévio, além da realização de exame criminológico pelo psicólogo que atua no sistema prisional. Concluímos que a prática psicológica será judiciária quando ofertada sob a obrigação do objetivo de subsidiar uma decisão judicial, estando submetida ao princípio de imparcialidade, tendo como beneficiário o dever de julgar do juiz; será forense quando, por força de compromisso profissional, assumir o objetivo de influenciar uma decisão judicial em conformidade com os interesses do envolvido, sendo intrinsecamente parcial, tendo como beneficiária a pessoa atendida; será jurídica quando fundamentada na não jurisdicionalização dos conflitos e esquivar-se de subsidiar ou influenciar objetivos forenses, beneficiando o atendido / The Legal Psychology is presented as containing the Forensic Psychology, which contains the Judicial Psychology. These relationships of inclusion and their boundaries are established on the basis of legal expert and forensic assistant coach roles, as is provided for by law, from which it abstracted the discretion of the expert impartial enforcement and the condition of intrinsic bias to assistant coach, where also acknowledged differences in the performance objectives. Our method was to carry out extensive research in the relevant legislation, as well as resolutions, guidelines and references endorsed by the Psychology System Council, as well as in the literature of the last public concourse of the Court of São Paulo and in other publications that we had access . We conduct ourselves under the bias point out the inaccuracies that arise from the lack of recognition of the differences between these three areas of Legal Psychology. We based our research in the definition of psychological legal expertise as an obligation arising from the legislation and the regulatory profession by emphasizing the distinction between psychological skills and psychological diagnosis and differences between the work of the judicial psychologist and the psychologist forensic assistant coach; characterized as psychological technical assistance all the work done under the aegis of ethics of the professional relationship - client / public service user, and demonstrated to be irreconcilable with performing expertise. As a result, we define the field of Legal Psychology as the universal set of all these practices, it being inserted those carried out in organs which is based avoid jurisdictionalization conflicts (Public Defense and Child Protection Agency) and those geared to meet people in a situation of social vulnerability (CRAS) or at risk of disruption of family ties (CREAS), when psychologist insists on a genuinely psychological practice, that is, not again meet forensic objectives (adequacy of family life, mediation / conciliation conflicts, promotion of understanding, formalizing the agreement, decision making). Classified as Forensic Psychology the working in criminal enforcement when facing the social reintegration of the prisoner and when held in the Punishment and Alternative Measures Service and psychological service held in the Public Prosecutor and services created by the Maria da Penha Law and CREAS. We classify as Judicial Psychology practices conducted by psychologist employee of the Courts of Justice and all that they are equipped to carry out psychological study under judicial determination with involved in legal proceedings who have never had previous contact, and also conducting criminological examination the psychologist who works in the prison system. We conclude that psychological practice is judicial when performed under the obligation to support a judicial decision, being subject to the principle of impartiality, having as beneficiary the duty to decide to judge; Forensics will be when, for professional commitment to power, take in order to influence a court decision in accordance with the interests of involved, being intrinsically part, having as beneficiary the person served; It will be legal when to dodge influence court decisions and benefit the person served

Submitted by ANDRÉ MASAO PERES TOKUDA null (andremasao@hotmail.com) on 2016-02-19T13:10:17Z No. of bitstreams: 1 PSICOLOGIA E SISTEMA PENITENCIÁRIO.pdf: 2508235 bytes, checksum: d38b605c521b59d4ce2b2effdf478c0f (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Ana Paula Grisoto (grisotoana@reitoria.unesp.br) on 2016-02-19T18:51:57Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 tokuda_amp_me_assis.pdf: 2508235 bytes, checksum: d38b605c521b59d4ce2b2effdf478c0f (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-02-19T18:51:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 tokuda_amp_me_assis.pdf: 2508235 bytes, checksum: d38b605c521b59d4ce2b2effdf478c0f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-01-14 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / Através de revisão bibliográfica pode-se colocar que após 50 anos da regulamentação da Psicologia, como profissão, ainda é difícil encontrar bibliografias que tenham como tema a Psicologia Jurídica; essa invisibilidade se justifica, também, devido à quase inexistência no Brasil de disciplinas nos cursos de graduação que tenham como foco tal área, ou seja, existem poucas problematizações sobre este campo na área acadêmica e entre o(a)s profissionais. Neste trabalho cartografamos as atuações e histórias de treze psicólogo(a)s que trabalham (trabalhavam) nas penitenciárias do estado de São Paulo. Orientamo-nos para realização desta pesquisa pelo método cartográfico que correspondeu à exigência, dialogando com saberes que de modo complementar favoreciam variações; vale ressaltar que a cartografia é um método idealizado por geógrafo(a)s e utilizado pelos filósofos Gilles Deleuze e Félix Guattari. Com isso, pôde-se traçar diversas linhas e formas de atuações que atravessam (atravessavam) essas pessoas no dia a dia de trabalho nas unidades penitenciárias, traçando que cada psicólogo(a) foi construindo sua maneira de atuar ao longo de suas vivências, alguns(algumas) tornando-se mais problematizadore(a)s de suas realidades e outro(a)s se mantendo como realizadore(a)s de exames criminológicos, os quais pudemos mapear como principal função instituída a Psicologia e acabam por minar outras possíveis atuações, como trabalhos com grupos e atendimento psicológicos. Discute-se assim, neste trabalho, que há a naturalização do(a) psicólogo(a) como avaliador(a), no entanto existem linhas de fugas possíveis, como apontadas por alguns(algumas) participantes, através da realização de grupos que discutem com as pessoas que estão presas a realidade em que vivem e as diversas possibilidades de modos de viver. Através dessas cartografias acreditamos que ainda é necessário mais discussões sobre essa área da Psicologia, devido, principalmente, ainda estar ligada a realização de exames criminológicos, que acabam por definir vidas, cabendo aos(as) psicólogo(a)s problematizar como atuar de forma potencializadora e contra as biopolíticas que regulam e excluem pessoas selecionadas, uma atuação que prime pela defesa dos direitos humanos e valorização das vidas. / Through literature review we can put that after 50 years of regulation of Psychology as a profession, it is still difficult to find bibliographies which have as their theme the area of Legal Psychology; this invisibility is justified due to the almost absence in Brazil of disciplines in undergraduate courses that has how center this theme, in other words, there are scarce discussions found on this research field in the academic area and among professionals. In this paper we started mapping the actions and stories of thirteen psychologists who work (worked) in the penitentiaries of the state of São Paulo. We were guided to this research by mapping method which corresponded to the requirement, dialoguing with knowledge that a complementary mode favoring variations; it is noteworthy that cartography is a method devised by geographers and used by philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. Thus, it was possible to draw different lines and shapes of actions that cross (crossing) these people on a daily basis in the penitentiaries units, tracing every psychologist it was building his way of acting throughout their experiences, some becoming more discussants of their situations and others remaining as makers of the criminological examination, which is the main function established the psychology and end up undermining other possible actions, such as working with groups and psychological care. We discussed as well in this paper that there is a naturalization of the psychologist as value, however there are escape lines possible, as pointed out by some participants, through realization of groups that discussing with the people who are trapped reality in which they live and the various possibilities for ways of living. Through these mappings we believe it is still necessary many discussions on this area of the Psychology, principally due still is connected to carrying out of the criminological examination, should the profession discuss how to act of mode potentiating and against the biopolitics that regulate and exclude selected people, an acting that prime the defense of human rights and appreciation of life.

A Psicologia Jurídica é concebida como contendo a Psicologia Forense, que contém a Psicologia Judiciária. Estas relações de inclusão, com as respectivas delimitações, são aqui estabelecidas com fundamento nos papéis de perito e assistente técnico, tais como previstos na legislação vigente, da qual se abstraiu o critério de ausência ou presença da imposição de imparcialidade e pela qual se reconheceram diferenças quanto aos objetivos da atuação. Nosso método consistiu em proceder à ampla pesquisa da legislação pertinente, assim como de resoluções, diretrizes e bibliografia avalizada pelo Sistema Conselhos de Psicologia, além da bibliografia do último concurso do Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo e de outras publicações a que tivemos acesso. Conduzimo-nos com o intuito de apontar imprecisões decorrentes da porosidade entre essas três áreas das interfaces da Psicologia com o Direito, cujas delimitações não nos pareceram ainda devidamente acentuadas. Pautamo-nos pela prescrição de obrigatoriedade da perícia psicológica na legislação e na regulamentação da profissão, enfatizando os contornos entre perícia psicológica e diagnóstico psicológico, discernindo o trabalho do psicólogo judiciário do cabível ao psicólogo assistente técnico forense. Empenhamo-nos em caracterizar a assistência técnica psicológica como todo o trabalho realizado sob a égide da ética da relação entre profissional e cliente/usuário de serviço público, em contraposição à ética da realização de perícias. Como resultado, definimos o campo da Psicologia Jurídica como o conjunto universo de todas essas práticas, nela se inserindo aquelas realizadas nos órgãos cujo fundamento é evitar a jurisdicionalização dos conflitos (Defensoria Pública e Conselho Tutelar), bem como naqueles voltados a atender pessoas em situação de vulnerabilidade social (CRAS) ou sob risco de rompimento de vínculos familiares (CREAS), quando o psicólogo insiste em uma prática genuinamente psicológica, ou seja, que não se volte a atender objetivos forenses (adequação do convívio familiar, mediação/conciliação de conflitos, promoção do entendimento, formalização do acordo, tomada de decisão). Classificamos como Psicologia Forense o trabalho do psicólogo na execução penal objetivando a reintegração social do preso e o realizado nas Centrais de Penas e Medidas Alternativas, assim como a assistência técnica psicológica realizada no Ministério Público e nos serviços criados pela Lei Maria da Penha e nos CREAS. Já a Psicologia Judiciária, classificamos como as práticas realizadas pelo psicólogo funcionário dos Tribunais de Justiça e as de todos que a eles se equiparam ao proceder a estudo psicológico sob determinação judicial de envolvidos em processos judiciais com quem nunca mantiveram contato prévio, além da realização de exame criminológico pelo psicólogo que atua no sistema prisional. Concluímos que a prática psicológica será judiciária quando ofertada sob a obrigação do objetivo de subsidiar uma decisão judicial, estando submetida ao princípio de imparcialidade, tendo como beneficiário o dever de julgar do juiz; será forense quando, por força de compromisso profissional, assumir o objetivo de influenciar uma decisão judicial em conformidade com os interesses do envolvido, sendo intrinsecamente parcial, tendo como beneficiária a pessoa atendida; será jurídica quando fundamentada na não jurisdicionalização dos conflitos e esquivar-se de subsidiar ou influenciar objetivos forenses, beneficiando o atendido / The Legal Psychology is presented as containing the Forensic Psychology, which contains the Judicial Psychology. These relationships of inclusion and their boundaries are established on the basis of legal expert and forensic assistant coach roles, as is provided for by law, from which it abstracted the discretion of the expert impartial enforcement and the condition of intrinsic bias to assistant coach, where also acknowledged differences in the performance objectives. Our method was to carry out extensive research in the relevant legislation, as well as resolutions, guidelines and references endorsed by the Psychology System Council, as well as in the literature of the last public concourse of the Court of São Paulo and in other publications that we had access . We conduct ourselves under the bias point out the inaccuracies that arise from the lack of recognition of the differences between these three areas of Legal Psychology. We based our research in the definition of psychological legal expertise as an obligation arising from the legislation and the regulatory profession by emphasizing the distinction between psychological skills and psychological diagnosis and differences between the work of the judicial psychologist and the psychologist forensic assistant coach; characterized as psychological technical assistance all the work done under the aegis of ethics of the professional relationship - client / public service user, and demonstrated to be irreconcilable with performing expertise. As a result, we define the field of Legal Psychology as the universal set of all these practices, it being inserted those carried out in organs which is based avoid jurisdictionalization conflicts (Public Defense and Child Protection Agency) and those geared to meet people in a situation of social vulnerability (CRAS) or at risk of disruption of family ties (CREAS), when psychologist insists on a genuinely psychological practice, that is, not again meet forensic objectives (adequacy of family life, mediation / conciliation conflicts, promotion of understanding, formalizing the agreement, decision making). Classified as Forensic Psychology the working in criminal enforcement when facing the social reintegration of the prisoner and when held in the Punishment and Alternative Measures Service and psychological service held in the Public Prosecutor and services created by the Maria da Penha Law and CREAS. We classify as Judicial Psychology practices conducted by psychologist employee of the Courts of Justice and all that they are equipped to carry out psychological study under judicial determination with involved in legal proceedings who have never had previous contact, and also conducting criminological examination the psychologist who works in the prison system. We conclude that psychological practice is judicial when performed under the obligation to support a judicial decision, being subject to the principle of impartiality, having as beneficiary the duty to decide to judge; Forensics will be when, for professional commitment to power, take in order to influence a court decision in accordance with the interests of involved, being intrinsically part, having as beneficiary the person served; It will be legal when to dodge influence court decisions and benefit the person served

This research develops the social psychological study of lay perception of human rights and of rights-based reactions to perceived injustice. The pioneering work by social representation theorists is reviewed. Of particular interest is the use of rights-based responses to perceived relative subgroup disadvantage. It is argued that these responses are shaped by the historical development of the legal concept of unique subgroup rights; rights asserted by a subgroup that cannot be asserted by outgroup members or by members of a broader collective that includes all subgroups. The assertion of unique subgroup rights in contrast to individual rights was studied by presenting participants with scenarios suggestive of human rights violations. These included possible violations of privacy rights of indigenous Australians (Study 1), civil and political rights of indigenous Australians under mandatory sentencing schemes (Study 2), privacy rights of students in comparison to public servants (Study 3), refugee rights (Study 4), and reproductive rights of lesbians and single women in comparison to married women and women in de facto relationships (Study 5). The scenarios were based on real policy issues being debated in Australia at the time of data collection. Human rights activists participated in Studies 4 and 5. In Study 5, these activists participated via an online, web-based experiment. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. A social identity theory perspective is used drawing on concepts from both social identity theory and self-categorization theory. The studies reveal a preference for an equality-driven construal of the purpose of human rights law (i.e. that all Australians be treated equally regardless of subgroup membership) in contrast to minority support for a vulnerable groups construal of the purpose of human rights (i.e. that the purpose of human rights law is to protect vulnerable subgroups within a broader collective). Tajfelian social belief orientations of social mobility and social change are explicitly measured in Studies 3-5. Consistent with the social identity perspective, these ideological beliefs are conceptualised as background knowledge relevant to the subjective structuring of social reality (violation contexts) and to the process of motivated relative perception from the vantage point of the perceiver. There is some indication from these studies that social belief orientation may determine construals of the purpose of human rights. In Study 5 the observed preference for using inclusive human rights rhetoric in response to perceived subgroup injustice is explained as an identity-management strategy of social creativity. In Studies 4 and 5, explicit measurement of activist identification was also made in an attempt to further explain the apparently-dominant preference for an equality-driven construal of the purpose of human rights law and the preferred use of inclusive, individualised rights rhetoric in response to perceived subgroup injustice. Activist identification explained some action preferences, but did not simply translate into preferences for using subgroup interest arguments. In Study 5, metastereotyping measures revealed that inclusive rights-based protest strategies were used in order to create positive impressions of social justice campaigners in the minds of both outgroup and ingroup audiences. Ideas for future social psychological research on human rights is discussed.

No description available.

The present series of studies examine how jurors and public defenders evaluate different pieces of evidence and integrate them into a coherent conclusion within the context of a criminal case. Previous research has shown that in situations where both sides of the case are compelling, decision-makers nevertheless come to highly confident and polarized decisions, called coherence shifts (Simon, 2004). The present research sought to expand on coherence effects, improve upon the methodology of previous studies, and explore potential moderators of coherence. In Study 1, mock jurors (n = 306) read about a criminal case and evaluated multiple pieces of evidence at various points throughout the case. Results indicated that participants exhibited pronounced coherence shifts (i.e., their evaluations of the various pieces of evidence (a) became more consistent as the case progressed, and (b) were evaluated in line with their initial leanings) using an improved methodology that randomized evidence order and evidence valence. Furthermore, participants’ interim leanings of guilt or innocence biased their subsequent evaluations of ambiguous evidence. The direction and magnitude of participants’ coherence shifts were predicted by their pretrial dispositions towards prosecution and defense. Participants lacked awareness of how their perceptions of the evidence have shifted. Coherence shifts were not, however, moderated by asking mock jurors to justify their decisions, or by asking mock jurors to play devil’s advocate while considering each piece of evidence, underscoring the pervasiveness of this cognitive bias. Study 2 examined whether actual public defenders experience coherence shifts and how those shifts relate to the plea bargaining process; however, no coherence shifts were observed. Study 3 examined whether the timing of the defense’s presentation of their case could reduce coherence effects; results indicated that reading about the defense’s case immediately after the prosecution’s case (c.f. following a delay) marginally (p = .09) reduced coherence effects among jurors who acquitted the defendant, suggesting one potential strategy to mitigate this bias.